'Impossible' rocket drive works and could get to Moon in four hours

[gravityblock]

@Mark E

I would have to agree, criticizing the person rather than the concept has always been a losing proposition. I'm a little busy right now but in a bit I will post my solution to the float in tube problem and see where it takes us.

AC

You agree it isn't appropriate to criticize the person, even if the person is intentionally taking things out of context, misdirecting, misrepresenting, etc?  I respect his concepts, but not the intentional misbehavior.

What has this world come to, lol.

Gravock

[gravityblock]

Also,

MarkE has been attacking the person of MM by calling him a crackpot, and then attacking me personally cause I subscribe to some of his concepts and calling me a crackpot as well.  He has also personally attacked me by calling me a crackpot for the concepts I have promoted here by RD.  The ad hominem attacks have come from MarkE first.  The ad hominem attacks by me was in response to his intentional misbehavior and personal attacks. Unbelievable how he has turned his wrong doings around into a way were he gets the support of others while turning them against me.  Is it that easy to bamboozle and hoodwink the audience, lol.

Gravock

[gravityblock]

Concerning the float in a tube problem.

As I said prior at the top of the fixed tube the float displaces a volume of water which must be replaced and there is no getting around this fact. If the water displaced was not replaced then the height of the water column would get smaller and smaller and the process would stop. It requires work to lift the water to be replaced which is equivalent to the work performed by the float when rising in the tube.

My solution seemed obvious in that the weight of the water column is the real issue and if at some point it had no apparent weight then the system properties have changed in our favor. So how do we do it?, I would coat the inside and outside of the tube with a water repellent so the water column acts more like a friction-less rigid body in the tube then cradle the tube so it may move up and down freely on friction-less magnetic springs. If the tube can oscillate up and down with the bottom of the tube always remaining in the water then at the top of the upward stroke the whole of the water column becomes weightless due to it's own inertia. It should be obvious this oscillator is a conservative system... nothing lost nothing gained.

Now if at the top of the tube stroke when the water column is weightless but moving upward we removed the float then the water column may advance upward to replace the volume of the float due to it's own inertia. The water which moved upward let's say 3" to replace the float must also fall the same 3" later on with the whole tube thus mass of the water and tube as a whole is conserved minus the float.

The process would be as follows:
1)  Float in stationary tube rises to the top of the tube performing work.
2)  Energy from an external source is added to set the whole tube/water column in oscillation upward/downward with the bottom of the tube always remaining in the water.
3)  At the top of the stroke when the water is weightless but still acting upwards due to it's own inertia we open a valve and remove the float.
4)  The water column advances up 3" in the tube to fill the float space and a valve is closed then the whole tube and water column falls the same 3" conserving mass and energy with respect to the tube and water column as a whole. ie..the system does not know the float is missing with respect to the mass nor height of the water except for the mass of the float which is small in comparison.
5)  The energy to set the tube in oscillation from an external source is removed and stored and the tube and water column come to rest. The cycle repeats.

As we can see energy is conserved with respect to the whole oscillating tube/water column minus the float mass, it is also conserved with respect to the height of the water column in that the water rises 3" due to it's own inertia when the float is removed then falls the same 3" with the whole tube later on. The thing to keep in mind is that the mass/energy of the oscillating tube is the same regardless of where the float is in the tube. It does not care if the float is at the top or bottom or if it performed work or not. The oscillating tube is simply a more efficient means to remove the float, nothing more. Thus it would seem to me multiple conservative systems may be used to change the properties of the system which may change the rules... or not...we will see.

AC

I agree motion can be achieved and sustained without a loss of energy within a system.  I also agree oscillations in some form would be helpful in achieving this.  It's just an engineering issue to find a way to dynamically change the properties of the system, as you have said.  We need to learn how to correctly use the restoring force which sustains a body's motion to our advantage.

Gravock

[allcanadian]

@Gravityblock

You agree it isn't appropriate to criticize the person, even if the person is intentionally taking things out of context, misdirecting, misrepresenting, etc?  I respect his concepts, but not the intentional misbehavior.[/size]What has this world come to, lol.

I think personal criticism takes away from the debate of concepts which I believe is our purpose here. I like to take a little poke every now and then as much as the next person however an endless series of personal critiques as we see in this thread is not the way to make our point. It does not matter what others say, it matters that we can justify our thoughts and idea's with common sense and real world examples that work.


That being said can you find any problems or issues with what I have proposed?. I'm not looking for any kind of agreement here and would I expect everyone to be very critical of everything I proposed. I expect them to break it down piece by piece in a logical and reasonable manner to find any errors in judgement I may have made and that my friend is what science and progress is all about.


Small minds talk about people and great minds talk about concepts... so let's talk about concepts.
Let's end this pointless he said she said nonsense and get on with it.


Can anyone here find fault with what I have proposed?




AC

[gravityblock]

Here's another possible solution:

Let's reverse the process by making the water buoyant instead of the screw.  We'll replace the screw with a metal golf ball or sphere with no float.  We'll add salt to the water to make the water buoyant.  We'll add enough salt to the water to the point where a little more than half of the sphere is floating above the water.  Next we'll add a liquid, such as liquid detergent on top of the sphere.  The detergent will float at the top of the tube and draw the sphere more out of the salt water.  The sphere floating mostly in the detergent makes the closed tube top heavy.  The tube being on a pivot point will then begin to rotate.  As the top heavy tube is rotating, the sphere and detergent will float back to the top of the tube and reach it's starting point.  The process should repeat and sustain itself.  Why wouldn't this work?

Gravock